Name: W. Powell Source: unca20100401.htmAs it happens, I just screened the movie '2010' again a few hours ago.

Still the only Peter Hyams endeavor I've come across that rates as anything other than a complete trainwreck, of course, but I fully expect the coming year to bear even less resemblance to that than did the first year of the current decade/century to Kubrick's film of same.

Name: Tony Isabella Source: unca20100401.htmHappy New Year to Harlan, Susan, and the rest of the good hearts here...and also to my Sainted Wife Barb and son Eddie, who are in Pasadena for the Rose Bowl and Rose Bowl Parade. Hoo-hah!

next, I find it particulingly difficult to take anything you say too heart. espenchiallny after what you did you poor Smeagol. I can understand your anger regarding Frodo's actions, but you got a finger out of that deal. Isnt that enuff? Must you project your unresolved pain upon Ellison the demi-god? the chooseded one? god's only...god's only...ummm...god's little half acre? Must you? this truely gets my ears in the blender.

thirdest, take the goodest advice i ever knowed: keep out of the lien of fire.

my favorite psuedoname,
Rick

p.s. demi-god Ellison, the lady in Schenectedy died this morning. how's that for an idea?

Were I of the inclination to give your comment the respect of open debate, I would point out that a) Harlan has never once said that THE OSCAR were anything but a shitty movie, b) point out that, aspirations notwithstanding, screenplays produced and unproduced have never been among the achievements that cemented his reputation among readers, and c) ask you whether your thesis doesn't dissolve the instant you are forced to extend it to "Repent Harlequin" and "Jeffty is Five" or any of our host's many award-winning stories.

That, however, would be arguing facts with a guy who only pretends he's interested in arguing facts...as well as meeting him on his own chosen playing field.

I choose not to do that.

Call me petty. I've had the argument about Harlan's achievements before, with people who actually came to the table with some credibility -- the occasional writer or editor or even intelligent reader who did not find his work their cup of tea. I respected their approach enough to treat them like adults. I do not respect yours as much as I respect the value of my time.

So, here is the actual question I want to address.

Your messy spelling and punctuation aside, what did you do before you came here and what will you do when you leave?

Do you make a regular habit of traveling to the website forums of various other well-known artists, and bring up their own career low points? "Hey, everybody! So-and-so isn't a great songwriter! He wrote this piece of shit!" "Yo, so-and-so isn't a great artist! Everybody makes fun of this one painting he did!" "How can you say so-and-so is a great director? This one movie he made sucks balls!" "Whatsisname is not a great novelist! This one book is really really awful!" Do you do this to every artist you encounter, regardless of how much the overall body of their respective works may transcend the worst examples? If you knew who the hell I was, for instance, would you travel to my haunts and attack my early story, "The House of Nails?" Which really ain't all that good?

If this is THE ONLY TIME you've EVER done something like that...then Harlan himself looms large to you for some reason, and we need to address why you would take time out of your day to confront his friends in this manner. There are any number of figures you could have chosen. SOMETHING about Harlan in particular occupies your head. What?

If, on the other hand, YOU DO THIS CONSTANTLY, to anybody you can strike...as any number of other trolls traveling the internet do...then we need to address whether you're an emotional vampire, a vandal, or a pathetically empty person throwing rotten vegetables at your betters because you have nothing else to offer. Which is true?

Name: William C. Francis Source: unca20100401.htmArguing with certain individuals is like wrestling with a pig in mud - you can't win, you'll get mud all over yourself and you'll eventually realize the pig enjoys it.

Name: Gwyneth M905 Source: unca20100401.htmHappy New Year to All! Here's hoping that 2010 starts a prodigiously creative, propitious and prosperous period in all our lives!

The BBC has said it, "The noughties are over, the teens have begun!" So who here is going to be a noughtie in the New Year?
"Not I!" said the littlest Billy Goat Gruff!

As an addendum to the futurist predictions listed by other posters here, I found a reference to this interesting book on the increasing role of robotics in war in todays New York Times.

An excerpt from Wired for War by P.W. Singer, as published in Robots at War, Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2009

The most apt historical parallel to the current period in the development of robotics may well turn out to be World War I. Back then, strange, exciting new technologies that had been the stuff of science fiction just years earlier were introduced and used in increasing numbers on the battlefield. Indeed, it was H. G. Wells 1903 short story Land Ironclads that inspired Winston Churchill to champion the development of the tank. Another story, by A. A. Milne, creator of the beloved Winnie the Pooh series, was among the first to raise the prospect of using airplanes in war, while Arthur Conan Doyle (in Danger) and Jules Verne (in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea) pioneered the notion of using submarines in war. These new technologies didnt really change the fundamentals of war. But even the earliest models quickly proved useful enough to make it clear that they werent going to be relegated to the realm of fiction again anytime soon. More important, they raised questions not only about how best to use them in battle, but also about an array of new political, moral, and legal issues. For instance, the United States and Germanys differing interpretations of how submarine warfare should be conducted helped draw America into a world war. Similarly, airplanes proved useful for spotting and attacking troops at greater distances, but also allowed for strategic bombing of cities and other sites, which extended the battlefield to the home front.

Much the same sort of recalibration of thinking about war is starting to happen as a result of robotics today. On the civilian side, experts such as Microsofts Bill Gates describe robotics as being close to where computers were in the early 1980sstill rare, but poised for a breakout. On the military side, unmanned systems are rapidly coming into use in almost every realm of war, moving more and more soldiers out of danger, and allowing their enemies to be targeted with increasing precision.

And they are changing the experience of war itself. This is leading some of the first generation of soldiers working with robots to worry that war waged by remote control will come to seem too easy, too tempting. More than a century ago, General Robert E. Lee famously observed, It is good that we find war so horrible, or else we would become fond of it. He didnt contemplate a time when a pilot could go to war by commuting to work each morning in his Toyota to a cubicle where he could shoot missiles at an enemy thousands of miles away and then make it home in time for his kids soccer practice.

1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality

(Merriam-Webster, thankyouveddymuch)

I do not think this means what you think it means.
_________________________________________

An anonymous opinion is, essentially, worthless.

Here's why: First, the need for anonymity means one of two things. Either the individual does not have the courage of their convictions, or they are afraid of some sort of reprisal.

Now, if the need for anonymity is the latter (fear of reprisal), then the person in question would be careful to couch any and all criticism in a structurally sound and logical fashion so that their argument would be about the source material and avoids any semblance of a personal attack.

If, on the other hand, it's a lack of courage in their convictions, the opinion itself isn't worthy of attention. If the person making the observation isn't willing to stand behind their words, why should anyone care?

Secondly.

Anonymity renders the question: who sits behind the green curtain? Is it a) the previously mentioned Roger Ebert? Is it a teenager who has little else to do in life? Is it a person who has reason to dislike someone but doesn't dare reveal themselves?

Who knows?

But in each of the cases, the opinion is rendered useless because there's no frame of reference. Without that frame, it's pissing into the wind.

Let's take a look, shall we, at the criticism below. We don't know who it is, but we can make some assumptions.

First, it isn't Roger Ebert.

Second, it's someone who has been lurking or is at least familiar with the denizens of the Pav. This, of course, leads us to the need for anonymity. Either it's someone who cannot reveal themselves because they've been banned; someone who has reason to come here and lurk just to post spiteful missives and "correct" misguided Webderlanders; or someone who is known enough to this crowd that to post under their own name would be embarrassing.

Third, this person hopes desperately to be able to demonstrate what an obsequious and fawning lot we are. Who here will comes to the defense of THE OSCAR? Oooh, let's hit Harlan where it hurts by mentioning a forty year old work and saying it proves he's not a screenwriter. Ooooh!

(Note: This person is drawing a very clear line between "screenwriting" -- that is, for the movie theater -- versus "scriptwriting" -- which is for television.)

Now, ignoring the fact that Harlan HAS written some seriously classic episodes of some seriously classic tv series -- and penned some seriously classic short stories -- criticizing him for only writing one film (and THE OSCAR at that) is in the same vein as saying he's only written a couple of novels.

i.e.: What's the point? Who cares? Does it matter?

No.

He's won the WGA's "Most Outstanding Teleplay (solo work)" award four times. Good enough for me.

So whatever this emotional need to anonymously swipe out at people is, not only don't understand it, I don't think it's justified or justifiable. It isn't "correcting the record".

Name: John Zeock Source: unca20100401.htmTook the family to HOLMES last night. Enjoyed it. Didn't even think that Rachel McAdams was as negligible as others did. (but then I've liked her ever since I saw her in SLINGS AND ARROWS) (the best show you've never seen) (and I'll use the New Year to again mention Chad Oliver's SHADOWS IN THE SUN, the best novel you've never read). After seeing ME AND ORSON WELLES what I see HOLMES as is a reinterpretation,much as Orson did with JULIUS CAESAR.

Name: Jan Source: unca20100401.htm"reality":
As far as I know, tapes of The Oscar was never used to bomb any countries, so any additional, belated criticism of this little-seen, 40-year-old turkey is about as superfluous as it gets. As you point out yourself, Harlan owns up to it being a failure and has done so not only in the documentary.
Very few of us consider Harlan to be godlike or without flaw as person and writer. Don't give us shit about being here to inject a healthy dose of truth. When you criticize him or us, make sure it doesn't come across as borne out of boredom and a need for attention.
Also, when you single out one piece from a large oevre to criticize, how about picking something that wasn't rewritten by others? Since Harlan is a writer, not a screenwriter, and his most important works are between book covers, we don't judge him based on screenplay credits of over 40 years ago.

Name: Doctor Zombie Source: unca20100401.htmI lurk a lot here, and now I have started a little posting here.

I never lurked out of any desire to hide, just a knowledge that I had nothing much to say.

That's still largely the case.

But "reality" bites the big one.

"reality" is either someone associated with a certain comics personality we all could name or Rich and/or one of Rich's sockpuppets. I remember the cute handle of "turd gobbler" not so long ago and some exchanges between Rich and the gobbler or the gobbler was Rich. There was a lot of anal introsepction going on, the details don't matter.

It might even have been that hack screenwriter whom Harlan figurativelywhacked upside the head here during the WGA strike two years ago for being a sellout, The poseur claiming to be a friend of Harlans when he was actually no such thing, The hack that offered to sell his minor talent to the Producers for the pleasure of being issued a set of kneepads and bottle of mouthwash along with a key to the Exec. Washroom. I refer to the hack whose hobby is writing magazine articles on mlitary history when actually The Hack knows little on either subject. You knows who you be, bucko. You like airplanes of World War Two vintage. Yeah. You.

Howesomeever, whoever this personage may be is of no import. It's obvious the churl believe we consider Ellison as perfect.

As an asie, I suspect the mispellings and poor grammar are an affectaion. They are a tad too consistent and revealing of an attempt at clever a la "They'll never guess who I am if I write THIS badly!"

Anyway, I know Ellison is not perfect. U have seen his feet of lcay. I went to a screening of "Dreams With Sharp Teeth", and saw Ellison there. I actually stood within a few feet of Ellison.

He had messy hair, not perfectly coiffed. His white mane was literally windblown, strands flailing like a drowning womans thin whitearms after she has fallen overboard in a tempest. It was as if the owner had rushed through a windstorm to get to the screening on time. Actually, he had done exactly that. Imperfection.

His yellow jacket was, to my discerning eye, a rather unbecoming match to his white tee shirt. Imperfection the second.

There was a broken blood vessel on the back of his left hand, Imperfectoin trifecta!

Someone farted when he was in my vicinity. There was a distinct sulfurous tinge to its silent miasma. I do not know that it waa not his fart. Imperfection? Possibly.

Name: Dennis S Source: unca20100401.htmBashing a writer on his own site is uncool. Doesn't matter if the bash is true or not, this isn't the place for it, all you can do is hurt his feelings. You're not going to get a literary debate. There are other places on the Net for that.

Unless you post a valid email address, you're just as anonymous as anyone who calls themselves turd eater or whatever. It doesn't matter if a few others know you. That means about 90% of the posters on this board, including me, are just as anonymous as reality or Jan or Frank or Doctor Zombie or whoever.

Name: Michael Benedetti Source: unca20100401.htmI recommend that any visitor to this august site visit IMDB.com, where one can type 'Harlan Ellison' into the search field and discover a interesting bit of trivia:

At least Twenty-Nine (29) produced screenplays from stories or screenplays by Harlan Ellison, according to the information that site possesses.